“The new [criminal suspicions] are four counts of aggravated fraud and four counts of attempted aggravated fraud,” Fredrik Berg, a spokesperson for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, told Ars. “He is still in pretrial detention awaiting trial.”

Berg added, however, that the court denied the request to extend his detention on the suspicions of attempted aggravated assault, but kept the suspicions of aggravated assault ("grovt bedrägeri") alive.

Repeated attempts to contact the prosecutor in the case, Henrik Olin, and Svartholm Warg’s defense attorney, Ola Salmasson, were unsuccessful. The suspicions—which were brought Friday and can allow a suspect to remain in custody—are not the same as criminal charges. The new case, whose victim has yet to be named, remains under investigation.

Svartholm Warg had been living in Cambodia, but in September he was deported to Sweden on a visa violation to face possible charges in a hacking case against Logica, a Swedish IT firm that contracts with the Swedish tax authority. Formal charges have yet to be brought in that case.

Under the Swedish justice system, authorities can keep suspects in detention even before they are formally charged with a crime. However, the case must be reviewed by a judge every two weeks to decide whether to release the suspect. In Svartholm Warg’s case, that detention has been ongoing since September.

“It can be renewed until he is tried in court or no longer a suspect,” Berg added. “The rights of the suspect [are] upheld by the right to a detention hearing every two weeks in public court. A complicated investigation can take a long time and can mean a long detention time for a suspected person.”

Svartholm Warg is the first of the four Pirate Bay cofounders to have been forcibly returned to Sweden to serve time. With the exception of Carl Lundström—who served his house arrest in Sweden before returning to his residence in Switzerland—the others have left the country and maintained a pattern of evasive financial and legal tactics to avoid fines and prison terms handed down in 2009 in the Pirate Bay trial. In February, the Swedish Supreme Court declined to hear their appeals. The new case, as well as the Logica case, are distinct from the Pirate Bay case.

The time Svartholm Warg has been serving in detention does count, though, for his earlier sentence of ten months in prison. In addition, he cannot be held in pre-trial detention longer than his original sentence.

In the meantime, Svartholm Warg's supporters have set up a Spotify playlist in his honor. Tracks include "Slavery Days" by Burning Spear, "Me gustas tu" by Manu Chao, and most notably "Hurricane" by Bob Dylan. That song describes the wrongful imprisonment on murder charges of Rubin Carter, a 1960s-era boxer from New Jersey.

As amazing as it is that "attempted aggravated fraud" is even a thing, what exactly is the basis for that charge beyond looking for something else to tack onto the case against him? The article isn't explicit on what that is.

Under the Swedish justice system, authorities can keep suspects in detention even before they are formally charged with a crime. However, the case must be reviewed by a judge every two weeks to decide whether to release the suspect. In Svartholm Warg’s case, that detention has been ongoing since September.

Just curious, could someone with knowledge of the Swedish justice system clarify if that means that basically they can hold him for the rest of his life with only the inconvenience of having to put him before a judge every couple of weeks? I take it they don't have something analogous to a right to a speedy trial?

Smells to me like a desperate move to keep him in detention, because the original case doesn't have enough evidence to keep him. Keep in mind that while being detained, he has no contact what so ever with anyone except his mother (supervised) every 2 week,, maybe.

Make's me not wanting to end up on SÄPO's bad side. (swedish security police)

A complicated investigation can take a long time and can mean a long detention time for a suspected person.

I am surprised that the EU allows this with their strong focus on human rights. Holding a person against their will without charging them with anything? Shocking.

It might be noted, in addition to the above, that governments in general simply don't seem to know how to deal with advances in technology. It's the same thing that has happened over and over again through the decades as information has become both more easy to accurately replicate and methods of dissemination more efficient . In the end it's parties opposed to the dissemination of higher fidelity information vs. those who wish to share it. After all, communication is a natural function of who we are. We've just gotten better at it over time.

After moving from oral traditions to the written word, conveyance of information has been a driving factor in driving our species. It's just over time the medium has been progressing into more efficient and accurate forms. Scribes were once the preferred medium. The printing press revolutionized books that and there were laws passed concerning that medium as well. On through many other devices including the phonograph, cassette tapes (I'm leaving a lot out for brevity), VHS and DVDs, and now wholly digital files. Each generation creating a more perfect copy, each one getting easier and easier to communicate with likewise interested parties. Governments and businesses, on the other hand, have a vested interest in controlling information. I'm heartened by the fact that it seems to me that this is a fight that commoners have been winning ever since cuneiform became popular.

Under the Swedish justice system, authorities can keep suspects in detention even before they are formally charged with a crime. However, the case must be reviewed by a judge every two weeks to decide whether to release the suspect. In Svartholm Warg’s case, that detention has been ongoing since September.

Just curious, could someone with knowledge of the Swedish justice system clarify if that means that basically they can hold him for the rest of his life with only the inconvenience of having to put him before a judge every couple of weeks? I take it they don't have something analogous to a right to a speedy trial?

I suspect some of the outrage here is based on misunderstandings about the Scandinavian legal systems. For example, it seems to me the suspect/charged translation might be slightly misleading. I'd assume it refers to what we call “sigtet” and “tiltalt” in Denmark,* and I've seen them translated as “charged” and “indicted”, respectively.

* As a general rule of thumb, the Scandinavian countries are quite similar; I don't know much about the Swedish legal system, but I'd assume it's largely the same as what we have in Denmark.

I suspect some of the outrage here is based on misunderstandings about the Scandinavian legal systems. For example, it seems to me the suspect/charged translation might be slightly misleading. I'd assume it refers to what we call “sigtet” and “tiltalt” in Denmark,* and I've seen them translated as “charged” and “indicted”, respectively.

* As a general rule of thumb, the Scandinavian countries are quite similar; I don't know much about the Swedish legal system, but I'd assume it's largely the same as what we have in Denmark.

The rules in Sweden are well written for misuse and besides not like courts there show any caring about the law once it's question of copyright or anything political.The misuse of the legal system is well documented and almost each month there is some new case in the news showing just how full of shit the whole legal system is.

As to EU not whining, EU whines on other countries (except US ofc) but inside EU it's competition on who gets first to STASI 5.0 combined with fascism 5.0. After all there is a reason EUC and council of ministers exist. Keep stupid directly elected parliament away from anything important.

I have to admit that pre-trial detention for an indefinite period, absent a specific reason (e.g. the person's already done a runner), strikes me as...problematic.

It'd be easy enough for the government to, say, suppress a vocal opponent during election times by arresting them, placing them in pre-trial detention and holding them for a couple of months, then charging them with jaywalking* and saying that their prior behavior indicated a probability they would take off.

* Hyperbole, of course, a government would probably come up with something more important. Like IP infringement.

I suspect some of the outrage here is based on misunderstandings about the Scandinavian legal systems. For example, it seems to me the suspect/charged translation might be slightly misleading. I'd assume it refers to what we call “sigtet” and “tiltalt” in Denmark,* and I've seen them translated as “charged” and “indicted”, respectively.

* As a general rule of thumb, the Scandinavian countries are quite similar; I don't know much about the Swedish legal system, but I'd assume it's largely the same as what we have in Denmark.

It doesn't matter what the translation is. Indefinite detention is a sticking point in most western democracies. That includes waiting weeks for an indictment.

I have to admit that pre-trial detention for an indefinite period, absent a specific reason (e.g. the person's already done a runner), strikes me as...problematic.

Yeah, but the article says that's he's serving time of his 10 month sentence, he can't be kept for longer than 10 months pre-trial then.

If he hadn't been sentenced all ready, but hadn´t served that sentence, they couldn't have kept him. Perfectly fair and logical.

edit:

And if Swedish law is anything like Danish law, once he is charged with a crime, they can also keep him detained until trial, but only if it is resonable to do so. That is, it would be problematic to have him running around until trial on the grounds that he'll keep commiting crimes, or the type of charge against him, would damage the publics view on justice if he ran around freely pending trial (murder etc.). But also then, he couldn't be kept locked up for long without a trial. The police would have to present solid arguments as to why they still need to work on setting up a case, and to argue how the trial will likely bring a guilty verdict exceeding the time spend in detention.

This is like a generational fight. The average age of government workers and internet users differ, and so do their philosophies. People who in government, and I have talked to several in the United States just often can't wrap their heads around Pirate Bay, so to them anakata is an "economic terrorist"

Let me think... And if instead of devoting resources on imprisoning an prosectuing someone the EU would finally create a EU-wide online store and open its eyes on how the young generation consumes content? (DRM free, online, across devices, at a fair a reasonable price, with a great ease of use instead of a thousand caveats and stores)

I have worked for Hollywood, back in 2002. As an anecdote: they were looking for places where their trailers were shown without proper approval. In a time where the first descendants of Napster were putting entire movies on the web. (I told them, they weren't all that happy buy what striked me is that they had little to no knowledge of it)

Maybe, just maybe, incentivation of competition in a free content market is the way to go.

Know your customers' needs should be important...

And standards are there for a reason. I also don't like how MP3 was a standard on players (cars too) in a time when everyone knew MP3 was the format of piracy, but that's another story.

My point is, I am sorry for someone delivering what customers want (partially, let's admit he is not COMPLETELY innocent) and being prosecuted, when the regulators have no knowledge of the matter and receive big bucks to keep mum.

Does anyone else feel like these legal proceedings against the Pirate Bay founders is bordering on legal harassment? They are really trying to throw anything legal at these people that they HOPE will stick. It is getting kind of ridiculous to say the least. What a joke. Kind of like the whole Megaupload fiasco.

I hate to tell you all this, but I don't think Sweden's system is all that unusual. In the US for instance you can be held as a "Material Witness" or the police can simply come up with some basic plausible charge and hold you on that until they can indict. The terminology and details may be different from place to place, but ANYWHERE on Earth if the authorities have good reason to believe you've committed a crime they can hold you, and in any decent place you get to argue with them about it. In the US you'd have to get a Writ of Habeus sworn out and that's been known to take a LONG time in some cases. At least in Sweden you automatically get a court hearing.

And honestly, people, just because we all have a bit of a thing for TBP and its war against the idiots in Hollywood doesn't mean this guy is the good guy. Be careful who you root for...

Does anyone else feel like these legal proceedings against the Pirate Bay founders is bordering on legal harassment? They are really trying to throw anything legal at these people that they HOPE will stick. It is getting kind of ridiculous to say the least. What a joke. Kind of like the whole Megaupload fiasco.

I don't think anyone actually cares if any of the charges stick. The message is clear: if you do this kind of thing, you will be endlessly investigated and charged with any and every thing under the sun.

Even if you're never formally charged or convicted, you will spend the rest of your life in legal battles and/or jail. Regardless of what happens to this guy, or Assange, or O'Dwyer... they will serve as lessons to anyone else who might think of doing this kind of thing.

Does anyone else feel like these legal proceedings against the Pirate Bay founders is bordering on legal harassment? They are really trying to throw anything legal at these people that they HOPE will stick. It is getting kind of ridiculous to say the least. What a joke. Kind of like the whole Megaupload fiasco.

Well considering the founders were already found guilty in the pirate bay case, they do not need to "hope" for anything. Also this is no different than being in the U.S. and held without bail. This guy is a flight risk and this time is counting as time served for what he already owes from pirate case. (Which he fled the country to avoid serving). There seems to be the notion here that if someone creates a website that you like they can't possibly be guilty of breaking any laws (unless its the RIAA bribing hundreds of people to make up crimes.)

I hate to tell you all this, but I don't think Sweden's system is all that unusual. In the US for instance you can be held as a "Material Witness" or the police can simply come up with some basic plausible charge and hold you on that until they can indict. The terminology and details may be different from place to place, but ANYWHERE on Earth if the authorities have good reason to believe you've committed a crime they can hold you, and in any decent place you get to argue with them about it. In the US you'd have to get a Writ of Habeus sworn out and that's been known to take a LONG time in some cases. At least in Sweden you automatically get a court hearing.

And honestly, people, just because we all have a bit of a thing for TBP and its war against the idiots in Hollywood doesn't mean this guy is the good guy. Be careful who you root for...

A complicated investigation can take a long time and can mean a long detention time for a suspected person.

I am surprised that the EU allows this with their strong focus on human rights. Holding a person against their will without charging them with anything? Shocking.

And I am sure that this is all being done purposely by Sweden.This is a great example of what happens when you Fuck With A Nation.To bad that he is not Free.He should be Free.Who knows what the near Future will be for him.Would be pretty awesome if you saw a Million People March on the Prison to Free him but we all know that won't happen.Sweden is going to screw him as much as they can.

I don't think anyone actually cares if any of the charges stick. The message is clear: if you do this kind of thing, you will be endlessly investigated and charged with any and every thing under the sun.

Even if you're never formally charged or convicted, you will spend the rest of your life in legal battles and/or jail. Regardless of what happens to this guy, or Assange, or O'Dwyer... they will serve as lessons to anyone else who might think of doing this kind of thing.

I am really curious about what you exactly mean by "this kind of thing"?

I hate to tell you all this, but I don't think Sweden's system is all that unusual. In the US for instance you can be held as a "Material Witness" or the police can simply come up with some basic plausible charge and hold you on that until they can indict. The terminology and details may be different from place to place, but ANYWHERE on Earth if the authorities have good reason to believe you've committed a crime they can hold you, and in any decent place you get to argue with them about it. In the US you'd have to get a Writ of Habeus sworn out and that's been known to take a LONG time in some cases. At least in Sweden you automatically get a court hearing.

That's not really how it works in the US. You can be held no more than 72 hours before getting a hearing before a magistrate (and that only if a weekend intervenes), and there has to be probable cause to hold you any longer. If there is probable cause you can be held, but there is a right to bail in all but capital cases. (It can be denied if you are an actual flight risk, although that is a difficult to prove. Unless you are being tried on an escape charge.)

The bit about getting a writ of habeas sworn out isn't really how things work any more - there are a lot of other ways to get a hearing. I did a quick look back 30 years and couldn't find any violation in my state of the 72 hour rule. (Although I did find a case from 1981 where someone was improperly held for 48 hours because a magistrate was available).

Of advanced countries, the US remains probably the best place to be tried criminally if you are guilty, but probably one of the worst places to be tried if you are not...

Quote:

And honestly, people, just because we all have a bit of a thing for TBP and its war against the idiots in Hollywood doesn't mean this guy is the good guy. Be careful who you root for...

The time Svartholm Warg has been serving in detention does count, though, for his earlier sentence of ten months in prison. In addition, he cannot be held in pre-trial detention longer than his original sentence.

So he was sentenced to 10 months in prison and is just serving that sentence, while an investigation for other things is going on. The "pre-trial detention" has nothing to do with it: if he was not in pre-trial detention he would still be in jail. (Whether or not you agree with the original sentence has nothing to do with the article.)

Whether or not a "suspicion" is the same as a "charge" seems more a matter of translation. In the US, if you are arrested, the police have to specify within a short period what you are being accused of, in front of a judge. This is called being charged, but there is nothing that prevents the prosecutor from dropping or changing that charge before the trial. It seems the prosecutor has to do essentially the same thing in Sweden, except that he has to repeat it every two weeks. There really doesn't seem to be much difference. In the US you can often avoid pre-trial detention by posting bail, but in this case the suspect had already fled the country once to avoid detention. Good luck trying to get bail under those circumstances. (Plus, since most people borrow bail at a 10% fixed charge, you end up paying a lot of money even if you are found innocent.)

You guys need to quit crying out when you haven't been wronged. You're like the boy who cried wolf, except you really believe there IS a wolf when there isn't one.

Seriously:

1) This guy has already been sentenced to 10 months in prison, and is presently serving said sentence.

2) He got deported due to the hacking charges.

3) Now he's getting more charges added on, either for related or unrelated reasons.

The guy is a convicted criminal serving a (fairly lenient) jail sentence who tried to evade authorities for several years.

And you're whining about how his civil rights are being violated? Seriously? No, they aren't. The dude is a criminal and is where he belongs, and frankly a hearing every two weeks for someone -who is supposed to be in jail anyway- seems a bit excessive and like a big waste of money to me.

The time Svartholm Warg has been serving in detention does count, though, for his earlier sentence of ten months in prison. In addition, he cannot be held in pre-trial detention longer than his original sentence.

So he was sentenced to 10 months in prison and is just serving that sentence, while an investigation for other things is going on. The "pre-trial detention" has nothing to do with it: if he was not in pre-trial detention he would still be in jail. (Whether or not you agree with the original sentence has nothing to do with the article.)

Whether or not a "suspicion" is the same as a "charge" seems more a matter of translation. In the US, if you are arrested, the police have to specify within a short period what you are being accused of, in front of a judge. This is called being charged, but there is nothing that prevents the prosecutor from dropping or changing that charge before the trial. It seems the prosecutor has to do essentially the same thing in Sweden, except that he has to repeat it every two weeks. There really doesn't seem to be much difference. In the US you can often avoid pre-trial detention by posting bail, but in this case the suspect had already fled the country once to avoid detention. Good luck trying to get bail under those circumstances. (Plus, since most people borrow bail at a 10% fixed charge, you end up paying a lot of money even if you are found innocent.)

About right, except we don't have bail in Sweden. They usually just let people out until the trial unless there is a flightrisk or if it's a violent criminal or such.

You guys need to quit crying out when you haven't been wronged. You're like the boy who cried wolf, except you really believe there IS a wolf when there isn't one.

Seriously:

1) This guy has already been sentenced to 10 months in prison, and is presently serving said sentence.

2) He got deported due to the hacking charges.

3) Now he's getting more charges added on, either for related or unrelated reasons.

The guy is a convicted criminal serving a (fairly lenient) jail sentence who tried to evade authorities for several years.

And you're whining about how his civil rights are being violated? Seriously? No, they aren't. The dude is a criminal and is where he belongs, and frankly a hearing every two weeks for someone -who is supposed to be in jail anyway- seems a bit excessive and like a big waste of money to me.

Titanium, what you miss is that it is pretty much a consensus viewpoint among legal experts in Sweden that there were serious problems with the case (judge having conflicts of interest) AND that the Pirate Bay people hadn't committed any crime by making the Pirate Bay at the time (laws have changed since then but they are no longer running TPB).

The E.U. is due to review this quite soon and I wouldn't be surprised if Sweden is ordered to vacate the sentence and give these people a new trial.

The time Svartholm Warg has been serving in detention does count, though, for his earlier sentence of ten months in prison. In addition, he cannot be held in pre-trial detention longer than his original sentence.

So he was sentenced to 10 months in prison and is just serving that sentence, while an investigation for other things is going on. The "pre-trial detention" has nothing to do with it: if he was not in pre-trial detention he would still be in jail. (Whether or not you agree with the original sentence has nothing to do with the article.)

Whether or not a "suspicion" is the same as a "charge" seems more a matter of translation. In the US, if you are arrested, the police have to specify within a short period what you are being accused of, in front of a judge. This is called being charged, but there is nothing that prevents the prosecutor from dropping or changing that charge before the trial. It seems the prosecutor has to do essentially the same thing in Sweden, except that he has to repeat it every two weeks. There really doesn't seem to be much difference. In the US you can often avoid pre-trial detention by posting bail, but in this case the suspect had already fled the country once to avoid detention. Good luck trying to get bail under those circumstances. (Plus, since most people borrow bail at a 10% fixed charge, you end up paying a lot of money even if you are found innocent.)

Right, and as far as needing to be charged/arraigned this guy was a fugitive, he's already HAD his chance to make an initial appearance. I can tell you from watching all this firsthand that if you're picked up on a warrant there is NO guarantee at all you're getting a hearing right away. You PROBABLY will, but it is also QUITE possible in the US you'll sit in jail for 2 weeks before you appear anywhere.

Also, this whole article tells us very little about other possible options and eventualities in the Swedish system. Surely Sweden has amenities such as bail. This guy sounds like he's burned a lot of whatever credit he ever had with the judicial system.